I found this story earlier on the BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7149722.stm


Autocar magazine (somewhat bizarrely) asked bus design company Capoco
Design (which designed the the Dennis Dart and Trident amongst others)
to come up with a concept design for a new Routemaster-type bus. It's
hardly a spectacularly original idea, but it's interesting
nonetheless.

When I first read the BBC story (above) I scoffed somewhat, not least
because Boris Johnson (the Tory candidate in the forthcoming Mayoral
elections in May) declared it was "the shape of the future" - so my
instant prejudice was to be highly sceptical! However, the full
article has now been put up on the Autocar website, and it's less
ridiculous than I first though - you can read it for yourself he

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsAr...llCars/229691/


The article's author is lacking in having a proper historical
perspective when she considers the rear open platform of the old
Routemaster bus, would appear to be making it up when she claims that
TfL is "know as Transport for Lefties by weary London commuters" (I've
never heard anyone say that before - maybe I don't go to the right
dinner parties, thankfully!), and is guilty of subscribing to the
orthodox media opinion when she claims that London's "bendy-
busses" (sic) are "loathed and problematic" - the opinion of Londoners
on these buses is by no-means universally hostile as is often
portrayed in the press (though I certainly know a few non-transport
enthusiast normal people who detest them, but many more who find them
quite acceptable).

Contrary to the Mayor's comments in the BBC story, the article does
seem to suggest that accessibility issues have been taken into
account, with a low floor and space for wheelchairs and pushchairs.

I'm also all for serious consideration of alternative, less polluting
fuel sources instead of diesel. It might all sound like pie in the sky
talk now, but I think things will have to change sooner or later.

Of course whether any such bus is really a viable proposition is
questionable - the Autocar article claims it "might be viable with a
500 per year production run over nine years", but I suspect that's a
very optimistic estimate.

And of course there is the fact that these would be two-man buses,
requiring a conductor. As great as conductors may be, that is a very
significant expense - London's bus network is already subsidised, so
unless the subsidy is increased there would have to be cut backs
elsewhere. If the network was less frequent, less comprehensive or
more expensive to the passenger in terms of fares, then ridership
would be likely fall.

The BBC story has the Mayor's spokesman saying of Boris Johnson:
"Now he has unveiled his bus scheme it would mean single bus fares
going up from 90p to £1.50 and a weekly bus pass from £13 to £22."

I guess these are costing estimates produced by the Mayor as opposed
to Boris, but they do perhaps assist one in focusing on the crucial
issue of cost when it comes to proposals to reintroduce conductors, or
indeed proposals to design and build new buses...

However I'm not completely convinced whether it was the best move for
the Mayor's spokesman to totally completely rubbish the idea, even
though it would fit in with Ken's game plan to paint Boris as a
clueless incompetent. Perhaps 'Bozzer' has been wiley to attach
himself to the idea of re-introducing the Routemaster - even if all he
says is that he'll look into the idea, it associates him with the
popular Routemaster in the minds of the public. Whether the Honourable
Member for Henley actually has any real, substantive handle on
London's immensely complex transport issues is perhaps another matter.

Correct, TFL actually means "Transport ForLorn" or "Totally F****
London".

On 19 Dec, 17:50, Mizter T wrote:
clueless incompetent. Perhaps 'Bozzer' has been wiley to attach
himself to the idea of re-introducing the Routemaster - even if all he
says is that he'll look into the idea, it associates him with the
popular Routemaster in the minds of the public. Whether the Honourable
Member for Henley actually has any real, substantive handle on
London's immensely complex transport issues is perhaps another matter.

Won't happen. Even if the disabilty taliban can be mollified the
powers that be are still scared stiff of the health and safety issues
of having an open exit at the back. Its all swings and roundabouts but
we'll have to wait for the current spineless emasculated pillocks who
seem to run the country to retire before something like the
routemaster can come back. Some bullets in the back of the heads of
some ambulance chasing lawyers would help too.

B2003

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:50:22 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

I found this story earlier on the BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7149722.stm


Autocar magazine (somewhat bizarrely) asked bus design company Capoco
Design (which designed the the Dennis Dart and Trident amongst others)
to come up with a concept design for a new Routemaster-type bus. It's
hardly a spectacularly original idea, but it's interesting
nonetheless.

I reckon they just went at looked at old designs that attempted to
update the Routemaster and added a twist of current design "flair" to
make it look suitable for current tastes. It doesn't look a million
miles away from one design I glanced at today when I was leafing through
the updated Routemaster book by Ken Blacker.

The article's author is lacking in having a proper historical
perspective when she considers the rear open platform of the old
Routemaster bus, would appear to be making it up when she claims that
TfL is "know as Transport for Lefties by weary London commuters" (I've
never heard anyone say that before - maybe I don't go to the right
dinner parties, thankfully!), and is guilty of subscribing to the
orthodox media opinion when she claims that London's "bendy-
busses" (sic) are "loathed and problematic" - the opinion of Londoners
on these buses is by no-means universally hostile as is often
portrayed in the press (though I certainly know a few non-transport
enthusiast normal people who detest them, but many more who find them
quite acceptable).

More utter claptrap from clueless people.

I have never heard the term "transport for lefties" but perhaps that's
because I'm not a paid up member of the Tory Party or part of Boris's
campaign team.

Contrary to the Mayor's comments in the BBC story, the article does
seem to suggest that accessibility issues have been taken into
account, with a low floor and space for wheelchairs and pushchairs.

Well possibly. I have to say that it's difficult to tell from the design
drawings quite how it would work. The wheelchair space appears to be
right at the front behind the driver thus creating a gap between the
seats and driver's area. I wonder how the ramp would be operated given
that the conductor may be upstairs or preoccupied with people boarding
at the rear. If the ramp has to be controlled by the driver then I
wonder why we need a crew bus given that cash payment on bus is now down
to about 3% of all transactions and likely to fall further.

I'm also all for serious consideration of alternative, less polluting
fuel sources instead of diesel. It might all sound like pie in the sky
talk now, but I think things will have to change sooner or later.

TfL are already gently pushing the market to develop a range of possible
designs for hybrids etc. However it's not the first transport
organisation to do this as many continental operations are years ahead
of us in using alternative fuels.

Of course whether any such bus is really a viable proposition is
questionable - the Autocar article claims it "might be viable with a
500 per year production run over nine years", but I suspect that's a
very optimistic estimate.

The real test is whether any mainstream manufacturer would develop this
bus design independently because they felt it was a commercial
proposition. The answer to that is almost certainly no so what Boris and
Autocar are really saying is "would Londoners fund a bus design that is
not commercially viable?" Given everything else we are asked to fund I
don't see this as a priority. Would Boris really wish to be associated
with a massive subsidy scheme to buy vehicles and fund conductors that
aren't really needed when I expect his general political line will be
that Ken is an outrageous spendthrift and not to be trusted with any
money at all. That certainly seems to be the line being promulgated by
the Evening Standard over the "advisors and fraud" story line from Mr
Gilligan. Boris is in danger of trying to face both ways at once over
the financial prudence issue if he isn't careful.

And of course there is the fact that these would be two-man buses,
requiring a conductor. As great as conductors may be, that is a very
significant expense - London's bus network is already subsidised, so
unless the subsidy is increased there would have to be cut backs
elsewhere. If the network was less frequent, less comprehensive or
more expensive to the passenger in terms of fares, then ridership
would be likely fall.

And for me that's the issue. I like Routemasters but their time is
gone. I cannot see for a moment how hundreds of millions could be spent
on reviving an old bus design. The TfL budget is going to be under
severe pressure on all sorts of fronts given the massive schemes that
are being taken forward. If we have money for the bus network then
please spend it on improving existing service levels or adding new
useful services that provide new journey opportunities or open up areas
to bus services for the first time.

However I'm not completely convinced whether it was the best move for
the Mayor's spokesman to totally completely rubbish the idea, even
though it would fit in with Ken's game plan to paint Boris as a
clueless incompetent. Perhaps 'Bozzer' has been wiley to attach
himself to the idea of re-introducing the Routemaster - even if all he
says is that he'll look into the idea, it associates him with the
popular Routemaster in the minds of the public. Whether the Honourable
Member for Henley actually has any real, substantive handle on
London's immensely complex transport issues is perhaps another matter.

The real problem with this ludicrous policy stance over the Routemaster
from both Ken and Boris is that it is a silly diversion away from the
real issues. If the extent of the political debate about London's
transport network is going to be "Son of Routemaster - good or bad?"
then we might as well shut up shop. There are literally hundreds of
more important transport issues that deserve discussion and debate so
the voters can understand what the candidates stand for.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:

If the extent of the political debate about London's
transport network is going to be "Son of Routemaster - good or bad?"
then we might as well shut up shop. There are literally hundreds of
more important transport issues that deserve discussion and debate so
the voters can understand what the candidates stand for.

Amen to that!

mf

Paul Corfield wrote:

And for me that's the issue. I like Routemasters but their time is
gone. I cannot see for a moment how hundreds of millions could be spent
on reviving an old bus design.

Well there's the cost issue that's true, but the basic problem is the
Routemaster has several features that a) are not duplicated on the
replacement buses, particularly the ability to jump off between stops, open
platform that prevents it from getting too hot inside and onboard staff who
gave reassurance; and b) have been incorporated into road and bus stop
planning - e.g. the Liverpool Street to Tottenham bendy that takes forever
because of the over frequent bus stops that were placed for Routemasters or
the narrows built into roads that bendies have problems navigating.

What could address some of these problems would be more flexibility on the
part of drivers and/or the training - e.g. allowing passengers to be able to
escape the buses when on a scorching day they're stuck in traffic only 200
metres from the bus stop. It's these kind of things that make people want
the Routemaster back. Yes there's nostalgia for the bus but if the modern
buses were doing as good a job at meeting passenger requirements then demand
for the return would be less.

Another one that springs to mind are pushchairs. On modern buses owners of
toddler tractors seem to assume they have a God Given Right to the limited
open space and that anyone in that space for whatever reason can be simply
shoved aside (more than once I've had my shopping almost rammed) and battles
ensue when there isn't enough space to go round. I can't recall the battles
occurring on the Routemaster because it was clear they had to be folded.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:54:19 -0000, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

And for me that's the issue. I like Routemasters but their time is
gone. I cannot see for a moment how hundreds of millions could be spent
on reviving an old bus design.

Well there's the cost issue that's true, but the basic problem is the
Routemaster has several features that a) are not duplicated on the
replacement buses, particularly the ability to jump off between stops, open
platform that prevents it from getting too hot inside and onboard staff who
gave reassurance; and b) have been incorporated into road and bus stop
planning - e.g. the Liverpool Street to Tottenham bendy that takes forever
because of the over frequent bus stops that were placed for Routemasters or
the narrows built into roads that bendies have problems navigating.

I think it would be extremely doubtful that any replacement Routemaster
would be allowed to have an open platform no matter what is shown on
Autocar's sketches. I doubt it would pass health and safety checks and
there may well be insurance problems with such a design given the
relatively poor accident record of the Routemaster. Any before anyone
screams about bendy buses being unsafe I said relatively poor not
"horrendously unsafe" as others are wont to claim.

You're obviously referring to the 149. I confess I have not seen it in
the absolute height of the peak in the City but I do remember when the
149 was double deck OPO. Buses would literally sit for 5-8 minutes at
somewhere like Liverpool St as the driver could never get the doors shut
as the queue was never ending. With the bendy buses they do manage a
quick get away on other parts of the route and I've honestly not seen
any problems up at the Tottenham - Stoke Newington section. I've also
travelled on the 73 from Tottenham into town in the peaks and that's
much twistier than the 149 and the buses seem to do OK to me. I confess
I like bendy buses so perhaps I'm a bit biased but as crowd shifters I
think they do a decent job.

I imagine there will be some thinning out of buses on the Kingsland Road
when the ELLX opens anyway but I don't see bus stops being removed -
there'd be too much of an outcry. The legacy of short gaps between stops
may actually be from trolleybus days rather than the Routemaster era.

What could address some of these problems would be more flexibility on the
part of drivers and/or the training - e.g. allowing passengers to be able to
escape the buses when on a scorching day they're stuck in traffic only 200
metres from the bus stop. It's these kind of things that make people want
the Routemaster back. Yes there's nostalgia for the bus but if the modern
buses were doing as good a job at meeting passenger requirements then demand
for the return would be less.

To be fair to bus drivers they are in a bind when it comes to traffic
jams. They have legal duties placed on them with respect to passenger
safety and they are clearly told not to open doors between stops. Now
clearly if the roads are jammed solid and nothing is moving and a safe
step to the pavement is possible many will do the sensible thing and
allow people off. The occasional jobsworth may not but they are working
within what are generally sensible rules and it would only take one
accident for them to be stuck. Passengers can help by ensuring that if
they do step off that they actually look to see if there are
obstructions or possibly a cyclist sneaking up the inside. That would
reassure drivers that the passenger is taking some responsibility too.

Another one that springs to mind are pushchairs. On modern buses owners of
toddler tractors seem to assume they have a God Given Right to the limited
open space and that anyone in that space for whatever reason can be simply
shoved aside (more than once I've had my shopping almost rammed) and battles
ensue when there isn't enough space to go round. I can't recall the battles
occurring on the Routemaster because it was clear they had to be folded.

I could rant on about buggies for a long time but let's just say I agree
with your comments. The problem with the new Routemaster design is that
it is low floor, wider (the aisle would be accessible by buggies) and
would have lots of lovely space at the front of the lower deck complete
with its own door. I would envisage you'd have exactly the same
expectations of access from buggy wielding parents as on "normal" low
floor buses but with the added excitement of them being able to argue
with a conductor as well as with other buggy toting parents and the
other passengers. In such circumstances I don't see the buses actually
moving off the stop while the rowing continues.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message


I could rant on about buggies for a long time but let's just say I
agree with your comments. The problem with the new Routemaster design
is that it is low floor, wider (the aisle would be accessible by
buggies) and would have lots of lovely space at the front of the
lower deck complete with its own door. I would envisage you'd have
exactly the same expectations of access from buggy wielding parents
as on "normal" low floor buses but with the added excitement of them
being able to argue with a conductor as well as with other buggy
toting parents and the other passengers. In such circumstances I
don't see the buses actually moving off the stop while the rowing
continues.

But at least the buggues wouldn't get in the way of other pax getting
on, as happens with current buses.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:06:26 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message


I could rant on about buggies for a long time but let's just say I
agree with your comments. The problem with the new Routemaster design
is that it is low floor, wider (the aisle would be accessible by
buggies) and would have lots of lovely space at the front of the
lower deck complete with its own door. I would envisage you'd have
exactly the same expectations of access from buggy wielding parents
as on "normal" low floor buses but with the added excitement of them
being able to argue with a conductor as well as with other buggy
toting parents and the other passengers. In such circumstances I
don't see the buses actually moving off the stop while the rowing
continues.

But at least the buggues wouldn't get in the way of other pax getting
on, as happens with current buses.

You don't know that. It's quite possible that they would attempt to get
in at the back - remember no steps and a wider aisle as the bus would be
as wide as a modern bus at 2.55m - and wheel it to the front. Yes it
would be possible to open the front door and let them on but is that
really going to happen for buggies? Would the ramp have to be deployed
if the bus had pulled in awkwardly at a stop?

It that was the proposal then stop dwell times would become extended
compared to an old Routemaster which would worsen the case for the bus
overall as they'd be standing still for longer. This would make the
economics of such routes far worse than even conventional crew operation
never mind compared to a normal OPO bus or a bendy bus.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

At 21:52:33 on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 Paul Corfield opined:-

I imagine there will be some thinning out of buses on the Kingsland Road
when the ELLX opens anyway but I don't see bus stops being removed -
there'd be too much of an outcry.

When the 207 went over to bendy buses they did remove a stop near Ealing
Broadway. No outcry that I can recall.
--
Thoss